I am a MA/MBA candidate at the Lauder Institute and the Wharton School of Business. I focus on Russian politics, economics, and demography but also write more generally about Eastern Europe. Please note that all opinions expressed here are mine and mine alone and that I do not speak in an official capacity for Lauder, Wharton, Forbes or any other organization.
I do my best to inject hard numbers (and flashy Excel charts) into conversations and debates that are too frequently driven by anecdotes. In addition to Forbes I've written for True/Slant, INOSMI, Salon, the National Interest, The Moscow Times, Russia Magazine, the Washington Post, and Quartz.
I frequently make pronouncements of great importance on Twitter @MarkAdomanis. Compliments? Complaints? Job offers? Please feel free to e-mail me at RussiaHand@gmail.com

Russia‘s dramatic demographic improvements have continued through the first seven months of 2012, though very few people seem to have noticed them. You still regularly see articles like this one from NPR that talk about Russia’s “troubling demographics” but that don’t actually provide any indication as to whether these demographics have gotten better or worse over the past decade.

Well Rosstat released a new batch a data a few days ago and I thought it would be worth taking a quick look not at the month-over-month changes, but at how Russia’s projected 2012 results compare to its past experience:

The improvement in the natural population change in particularly impressive. Russia went from experiencing one of the world’s most dire depopulations to being naturally stagnant in barely seven years. Indeed Russia’s population is now more naturally stable than those of many of its neighbors, including several countries that have joined the EU and NATO (as I noted a few months ago, Russia’s population is now more naturally stable than Germany’s).

Does the rapid and sustained improvement in Russia’s demographic trends exonerate the Putin regime from its many sins? No. But I think, at a minimum, the fact that Russians are, on average, living longer, having more children, drinking themselves to death less frequently, killing themselves less frequently, and killing each other less frequently* ought to complicate the media narrative of the country that is overwhelmingly about chaos, rottenness, decay, and decline.

The handful of Western demographers who, in the late 1970′s and early 1980′s, accurately predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union did so not simply because Soviet Union’s level of mortality was bad (though it was obviously not very good) but because the trends were all going in the wrong direction. Infant mortality, and mortality from infectious diseases, had always been higher in Russia than in the West, but they had usually been decreasing and, very gradually, converging towards the levels of developed Western countries.

But in the 1970′s and most of the 1980′s the Soviet Union was diverging from the West. Mortality wasn’t going down, or even going down more slowly than before, it was actually increasing. To a large extent this reflected the shocking growth in alcoholism and binge drinking, and to a lesser extent it reflected a genuine society-wide sense of malaise and hopelessness and a breakdown in the basic functionality of the public health system. Although a narrative in which the dread Vladimir Putin has cruelly driven the Russians to despair is plausible, at a very basic level it simply doesn’t match the evidence. In 2012 Russia is arguably safer and healthier than it has ever been before, and if Russians are actually in some sort of mass existential crisis about the future of their country they have an odd way of showing it.

Totally independent of your political orientation, whether you loathe or love Vladimir Putin and the system he has molded, we can all be thankful that Russia’s demographics have improved as dramatically as they have over the past decade. At the end of the day those demographic indicators are about the lives of real people, and it’s comforting to know that they’re (mostly) moving in the right direction.

*Alcohol poisonings, suicide, and murder have all declined noticeably over the past several years, and the decrease in deaths from “external causes” is proportionally much larger than the decrease in deaths from heart disease, cancer, etc.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Fertility is, as you might suspect, highest in the non-Slavic areas (i.e. the North Caucasus) but it has been broadly improving in all areas of the country. Russia’s ethnic balance will gradually shift in a non-Slavic direction, as has been happening for quite awhile now, but this is a gradual continuation of a previous trend.

Russia, without any doubt, still faces some very serious demographic challenges. However, thanks to recent improvements, these seem manageable, and not apocalyptic.

Yes, fertility is highest in non-Slavic areas. Namely, the North Caucasus Muslim – most prominently, Chechnya – and the Buddhist peoples of Siberia like the Buryats, Yakuts, and Tuvans. (The Muslim Tatars and Bashkirs, the two largest non-Slavic minorities, have TFR’s insignificantly different from those of ethnic Russians).

The demographic uptick though universal to all areas however has been much more pronounced in the Slavic areas. This means that the TFR gap between Russia as a whole, and the Chechens/Ingush/Dagestanis, is narrowing. However, the crude birth rate gap remains huge, because said minorities have much younger populations.

yeah Keif, we can’t possibly realize that anything good ever happens in Russia, nor can we recognize that Russian TFR is now *substantially* above many other Eastern European EU countries. That would be very bad manners!

“Non-Slavic areas” and “the North Caucasus” are not synonyms. Most non-Slavic rossiyane do not live in the North Caucasus but in other parts of European Russia or Siveria/the far East. How are rates for Chuvashia, Tatarstan, and so forth?

Yes, fertility is highest in non-Slavic areas. Namely, the North Caucasus Muslim – most prominently, Chechnya – and the Buddhist peoples of Siberia like the Buryats, Yakuts, and Tuvans. (The Muslim Tatars and Bashkirs, the two largest non-Slavic minorities, have TFR’s insignificantly different from those of ethnic Russians).

You didn’t really answer my question about population pyramid and demographic trend. To be honest, I wasn’t expecting that. It is difficult.

Is anything good ever happening in Russia? Yes, sure, all the time. For example, the Lords of the Kremlin are getting older every day. But demographic development is just not one of those things land in the good category . That is not my opinion but the entire scientific community’s.

There is nothing to get exited about the Russia’s TFR compared to other EE EU countries. In each of these countries TFR is way below replacement level, no? And is Russia actually any closer to relpacement level than for example Poland? Russia has much higher mortality after all.

Keif the reason I don’t answer your every question is that it is futile as you are far more interested in your own agenda than getting basic facts right.

Hence, I focus on basic facts. What point is there discussing anything else with you? One has to start with the ABC’s, after all.

To wit, your latest:

In each of these countries TFR is way below replacement level, no? And is Russia actually any closer to relpacement level than for example Poland? Russia has much higher mortality after all.

You demonstrate that you have no understanding whatsoever of basic demographic concepts.

Sublime Durak, when did UKR and BLR become EU members?

You were talking of “EE.”

As expected, the World Health Organization disagrees with you on Latvia’s and Russia’s mortality data.

Latvia’s mortality rate for 2011 was exactly 14.0, and increased further by 1.3% y/y in Jan-Jul 2012. That is from its national statistics site. Russia’s mortality rate for Jan-Jul is 13.5. The WHO is correct for 2010, but the same pattern no longer holds for 2012.

Sub Durak, I was kind of expecting Mr. Adomanis to answer my question about population pyramid, not you.

But now that you are here I do have a question about the basics of demograpichs – are you saying that replacement level is not affected by TFR and mortality (among other things, such as genetic disorders inhibiting procreation)? If it is affected then higher mortality countries like Russia could require higher TFR to reach replacement level. If not, then I admit I know nothing.

Provisional data by Lat Stats for the first seven months of this year do indeed indicate that there were total of 225 more deaths in Jan-Jul this year compared to 2011. Now do those 225 dead Latvians prove only that there is possibly (provided that provisional Lat Stats data becomes confimed, that provisional Rosstat data becomes confirmed, that Rosstat figures are not affected by massive corruption endemic in all other Russian institutions) one EE EU country that could have similar death rate to that of Russia’s or does it also prove that Russia’s death rate is not one of the highest in the world and so being Russia’s demographic future is fantastic?

You appear to not know the difference between the INFANT MORTALITY RATE and the OVERALL MORTALITY RATE. Hint, only ONE of these impacts a country’s “replacement level” fertility. Can you guess which one?

But now that you are here I do have a question about the basics of demograpichs – are you saying that replacement level is not affected by TFR and mortality (among other things, such as genetic disorders inhibiting procreation)? If it is affected then higher mortality countries like Russia could require higher TFR to reach replacement level. If not, then I admit I know nothing.

Look this is all easily available on Wikipedia. If you participate in demography-related debates so much, would it not behove to actually… learn something about it?

The replacement level rate of TFR is 2.1 children per woman (because there are 1.05 males to females at birth). As far as mortality is concerned, it only has an impact on the replacement level rate insofar as some females are going to die at birth, in childhood, or otherwise before their childbearing years are over.

This is a real issue for some very poor developing countries, where the replacement level rate can be 2.5 or higher because many females die as infants or in an early childbirth. It is NOT however an issue in Russia because female mortality there before her childbearing years are over is negligible.

So to answer your question, no Russia does not need an appreciably higher TFR to reach replacement level rates than Poland.

Keif, this is *shockingly* basic stuff – it’s actually nothing short of remarkable that you were able to so thoroughly botch such a basic concept. How do you expect to be taken seriously if you can’t be bothered to learn anything about topics you are, apparently, so passionate about?

Hi, Mark! I’m Andrew. I’m from Russia. Occasionally I found your article. These figures look very encouraging because for the last twenty years we have had negative natural population change. You have forcast a quite fast growth of the birth rate this year. Could you voice a figure of TFR in 2012?

I’m curious if you have any information on projected demographic composition of Russia. I know for instance that in 1926 ethnic Russians were 78% of the total population and according to the 2010 census they constitute about 81% of the total population. Is there reason to believe that this proportion will increase, decrease or remain stagnant over time? and if it’ll increase/decrease over time (say, next few decades) by how much?

1) is that an all-Union census or a census only of the RSFSR? I’d frankly be very surprised if Russians were only 78% of the RSFSR but 78% for the population of the entire Soviet Union sounds about right.

2) I expect a slow and steady decrease in the ethnically Russian component over time. Nothing dramatic, but the populations of the non-Russian republics are growing more quickly than those of ethnically Russian areas so I don’t see how this can realistically be avoided

The handful of Western demographers who, in the late 1970′s and early 1980′s, accurately predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union did so not simply because Soviet Union’s level of mortality was bad (though it was obviously not very good) but because the trends were all going in the wrong direction.

They were correct, obviously, but for patently the wrong reasons. North Korea has much worse demographics than ANY commie country, former or current, – it had, like, a famine – but it’s nowhere near collapse.

*Alcohol poisonings, suicide, and murder have all declined noticeably over the past several years, and the decrease in deaths from “external causes” is proportionally much larger than the decrease in deaths from heart disease, cancer, etc.

Furthermore, alcohol poisonings are falling the fastest of all. This is just further confirmation that all the other negative factors are very heavily linked to the phenomenon of binge vodka drinking.

The improvement in the natural population change in particularly impressive. Russia went from experiencing one of the world’s most dire depopulations to being naturally stagnant in barely seven years.

this happened much faster than expected! great news, but of course despite people saying that the population of russia would fall dramatically in the next few years would still be incorrect even IF the trends of birth rates in previous years remained the same, because russia (or the FSU) lost 27 million people, mostly men in world war 2, and looking at its population pyramid russia has a disproportionate 60+ in the female column, so it has been losing these years, and still has to lose, unfortunately those pensioners still left from WW2 times, (but death rates are still too high for natural grow in russia, death from preventable causes should of course hopefully be lower next year)

Thank you for the story. One more comment: young generation is dreaming of getting out. Mostly to the Europe, some to the US. However good the statistic may seem. Why? I have no answers but few that not really politically correct. Will this trend affect the growing population statistics? Depends on how you look at it. The Quantity isn`t necessarily means the quality.

While I agree that less violence, alcoholism, suicide, depression, etc. is good news, I otherwise believe this story reflects a dangerous but common cultural bias that population growth is good. In a world of 7 billion that is gobbling up the planet, we are consuming resources at an unsustainable rate. That means we are not leaving for future generations a world worth inheriting. Gradual, non-violent population decline (preferably via voluntary choice of smaller families), while it has its challenges, should be celebrated in every nation. The Earth cannot support good lives for 7 billion, let alone 9 or 10.

Dave Gardner Director of the documentary GrowthBusters: Hooked on Growth

it is extermely disquieting to see such a misanthropic outlook! What you propose is a slow, quiet death of humanity as a whole, as dwindling of population will surely not stop on just balancing mortality. And what about disasters? How will they affact such a society? A society, which is on cultural level incapable of replacing losses or casualties? Another thing: on our current level of advancement it would take only one ill-aimed large enough chunk of space rock to destroy whole our race. The key to salvation is scape expancion. Do you really believe that humanity as a whole will forever be locked on Earth? There is a huge galaxy out there, room for infinite expansion, new challenges and frontiers, resources of every kind possible. But we will need skilled hands and brilliant minds to get there, as many of them, as possible.

As for Russia proper: despite the loss of land when USSR collapsed, we still have vast unpopulated areas to settle and cultivate. Cities already built need to be supported. Russia needs youth to protect and support the grown ups of today, when they will get old. So no, concerns such as yours are too radical for now as well as a looooong time to come. It is pointless to caution a farmer against flood, when his fields are bone dry.

I travel between Russia and US and have done so for the last 16 years. I speak Russian and English with equal degree of fluency and a comparison between the two countries has been a point of my keen interest. One has to cut through a thick wall of US propaganda (consisting primarily of crude lies and russophobic hate speech) to get to the truth and I am glad Adomanis has done that more than once.

The US media and establishment foster this hatred and a deliberate disinformation is led by the CIA. Just look at the CIA’s “World Factbook” which lists Russian population at 138mln. It is interesting to note that the total GDP listed by that despicable American agency is $2.414 trillion and the GDP per capita listed by the same publication is $17,000. However, if you divide the former number by 138mln, you will get $17,492, not $17,000 listed by the CIA. The figure of $17,000 is based on 142mln population.

One can draw at least two conclusions from this discrepancy:

1. American propaganda agency does not believe its own lies.

2. CIA will stoop as low as it takes to present Russia in as bad light as possible, in this case, the GDP per capita is calculated based on the higher population of 142mln to get a lower figure which makes it appear less prosperous and yet, a lower total population figure of 138mln is listed to make it look like Russia is in a demographics crisis.

I would like to make one other point: with US having 200 years of either slavery or segregation or Indian genocide (30mln is an official count), with its “Eminent Domain”, NDAA and “Patriot Act” laws which violate most people’s concept of fairness and political freedom, Americans have to lie particularly hard about other countries to distract attention from its most reprehensible past and present. US has very little to be proud about and almost everything to be ashamed of.

Mark, I appreciate your posts on Russian demographics and your desire to counter the one-sided narrative on Russia in decline that is all too prevalent in the West. That said, knowing virtually nothing about Russia, I’m wondering if you could elaborate a bit more on the quality of Rosstat data as compared to other large national statistical agencies. How good is Rosstat at addressing Russia’s spatial and ethnic diversity? And how assured can we be that the data are a true representation of reality as opposed to being politically massaged?